Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th May 2010 11:40 UTC
Intel One name was conspicuously absent from the list of companies backing Google's WebM project and the VP8 codec. Despite other chip makers and designers being on the list, like AMD, NVIDIA, ARM, and Qualcomm, Intel didn't make an appearance. Yesterday, the company made its first careful commitment to the WebM project.
Permalink for comment 427138
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

The quality issue came about when YouTube refused to use Theora because of its quality/bandwidth usage. Adamant Theora supporters believed that the average user would not have noticed that Youtube's video quality had tanked or that the videos took longer to buffer.

I'd gladly mod you up as informative if I could. I forgot about that episode, having x264dev's post about how high tech and incredible H.264 is and how crappy Theora is as the most distant thing in my memory on the subject.

If Theora was a credible alternative, more sites would be using it.

This does not take into account things like video conversion costs. MPEG-4 is around since the DVD days I think, whereas Theora is much younger. Most of the established video playing infrastructure on the web is based on H.264, and changing it would prove to be quite difficult, unless a big company like Google pushes change forward.

Then there's the visibility problem : honestly, who knew about Theora before trying multimedia on linux ?

These two problems are adressed by VP8, not because of its quality but because of the big company backing it. If google provides money, security through proper support, mature encoding software, FUD against the MPEG-LA, and cheaper licensing, chances are that VP8 will make it as the codec for the web.

Again, it's got nothing to do with quality, except when it's very bad (which Google argued about Theora. Don't know if it's true), it's about which company or organism is stronger ;) If Apple ruled the W3C, the whole video codec issue would never have occurred because the royalty free requirement would have been silently removed in some way ^^

(Actually, it's quite worrying to rely on companies owned and directed by a single man for everything, when you think of it)

Edited 2010-05-29 13:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1